Search

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how youth's engineering identity has changed in the process of productive struggle in Making activities in the Midwestern U.S in a summer program. The researchers conducted focus-group interviews, and also administered an Engineering Identity survey as well as the Draw an Engineer Test to the students at two time points (pre/post). Additionally, the researchers observed the level of youths' interaction by video-recording each session, conducted debriefing sessions, and examined youth artifacts. The findings revealed two themes. The first theme is that the boys and girls who were engaged in the process of productive struggle showed changes in their identity with engineering. The second theme is that the boys and girls who weren't fully engaged in the process of productive struggle (i.e., demonstrated unproductive struggle) showed little or no change in their identity with engineering. This study showed that regardless of whether the students went through the process of productive struggle or not, they developed neutral or positive attitudes toward engineering. This finding also added to the existing literature on that productive struggle in Making activities has potential to enhance these youth' learning of engineering knowledge and engineering tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the effect of within-gender and cross-gender team argumentation on seventh graders’ science knowledge and argumentation skills in a computer-assisted learning environment in the United States. A total of 58 students were engaged in the collaborative within-gender team argumentation process (the treatment condition), while 46 students were engaged in the collaborative cross-gender team argumentation process (the control condition). Verbal collaborative argumentation was recorded and the students’ post essays were collected. There were no statistically significant differences in science knowledge between the treatment and control conditions either for the combined set of students, or for females and males considered separately. For the combined set of male and female students, MANOVA indicated no statistically significant within-gender/cross-gender team argumentation differences in argumentation skills. Similarly, no significant within-gender/cross-gender team argumentation differences were observed among females. However, this study found a marginally significant difference in argumentation skills between male students in the within-gender team argumentation (treatment condition) and male students in the cross-gender team argumentation (control condition). A qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the computer-assisted application supported students’ development of argumentation skills in within-gender and cross-gender team argumentation. Female teams, regardless of within-gender or cross-gender team argumentation, demonstrated balanced participation in the construction of argumentation maps in the application. Male teams in within-gender team argumentation (the treatment condition) demonstrated unbalanced participation in the construction of argumentation maps in the application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]